It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation. However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread. If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.

It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation. †However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread. †If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.

Hi Lizzy, I was talking about posting privileges = writing OPs as opposed to commenting. I never assumed that you did no longer allow him to comment.And just to be clear, I love the way you manage your blog. :-)

I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.

I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.

I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

Absolutely it's blurry and context dependent. Arguably even more so in Europe and other places with a long history of intensive human meddling in nature than in North America. These are the sorts of issues I thrash about with in my work. Those lovely species-rich grasslands that aren't plowed, herbicided or fertilised, they're natural aren't they? But wait, wouldn't they be forests if you got rid of the cattle? Or would the deer keep the grasslands open? And what about the now-extinct wolves?

These sorts of arguments are why we use the term "semi-natural" a lot!

I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.

TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but †he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

Nor I. He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete. Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.

Nor I. †He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete. †Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

<span style='font-family:Comic Sans MS'></span>The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog -The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

My major paper on how evolutionary theory can articulate archival theory dealt with just this question, too. Human society is a subset of nature, a creation of nature, and to label everything that we do (like create records) as artificial, while labeling constructions such as birds' nests as natural, is fallacious, the product of our dualistic thinking. Ironically, this also gets to the very core of ID, as its adherents cannot conceive of the natural. They use the word (as many others do) to mean "morally right" or "in balance," etc. Being also rigidly black and white thinkers, they fail to grasp the concept of a continuum.

Certainly nothing is unnatural that is not physically impossible. -John Bartlet

(Which does not mean I'm in any hurry to participate in the naturalness of illness or death, now, does it? )

So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument? †I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.

*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Just checked in again on the semiotic argument thread. †Upright has a very special creationist aroma doesn't he? †So pungent, so cock-sure, so completely unable to get the flipping point. †His most recent best is his refusal to understand the difference between logical arguments and empirically-based arguments.